- From: Champion, Mike <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 11:13:22 -0500
- To: "'www-ws-arch@w3.org '" <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
> -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org] > Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 11:01 AM > To: Burdett, David > Cc: 'www-ws-arch@w3.org ' > Subject: Re: Visibility (was Re: Introducing the Service Oriented > Architec tural style, and it's constraints and properties. > > > So, a *rhetorical* question for those of you who don't believe that > GET is at the same layer as getStockQuote; what would you call a > protocol that does have a "getStockQuote" method? Note; "application > protocol" is already taken. 8-) > It's not an application protocol, it's an application *using* a bunch of protocols possibly including SOAP, and/or HTTP, and/or pigeon transport, to do its job. What do you call a protocol that involves POSTing an HTML form to a CGI script that looks up a stock quote? I for one rebel at the idea that every HTML FORM and CGI script is a "new protocol" in any useful sense of the term, although it is probably as technically true as the assertion that every WSDL file defines a new protocol. Conventional "RPC" Web services don't do anything different than that HTML form / CGI script at the protocol level, they simply ofer an additional set of tools (or protocol, if SOAP is in fact a "protocol" in this example) to allow stupid software rather than human programmers to generate those POST bodies on one side and map them onto code invocations at the other. Anyway, we're floundering around in the mud chasing the carp at the bottom of the trout pond, IMHO :-)
Received on Wednesday, 26 February 2003 11:13:26 UTC